Religious expression

Consider the cheerleaders

THE Kountze Lions, a high-school football team from east Texas, are having a good season. Their all-time win percentage is 38%. Thus far this year, they're five for seven. The problem is that the Lions have, perhaps, posted these gains after making illicit use of performance-enhancing prayer. Since the start of the year the school's cheerleading squad has been displaying banners painted with Bible verses (like the one pictured above). It's common at high-school football games for the team to run onto the field by bursting through such banners like the Kool-Aid man, but it's not common for the banners to carry religious messages, because public schools aren't supposed to promote religion. Last month, accordingly, the district's superintendent banned such banners, but on October 18th a district court ruled that the school can't enforce the ban for the time being.

At a press conference in support of the cheerleaders last week Rick Perry, the governor, and Greg Abbott, the state's attorney-general, were looking like Christmas, and I do mean Christmas, had come early. America's constitution separates church and state, as indeed does the Texas version. But Texas's contemporary political leaders have notably declined to give the principle much respect. The controversy had given them a chance to stand up for Texas, high-school football, cheerleaders, God, and the constitutionally enshrined right to free expression, all in one go, against the interference of—as Mr Abbott put it, in an incredulous tone—"an atheist group from Wisconsin".

The speech rights of students are often debated, because if a student is in public school, as most American students are, a lot of their self-expression happens under the auspices of a governmental entity. Broadly speaking, it's probably constitutionally correct to say that students have the right to put Bible verses on banners, just like all Americans do. And if the complaint is that an outside observer would assume that any student doing so is working under the auspices of school authority, Mr Abbott and Mr Perry would probably still be on firm footing. The exercise of rights shouldn't be curtailed simply because of other people's perceptions and preferences.

A wrinkle here, though, is that courts have already taken the position that cheerleaders are representatives of the school, even agents of the school's authority. Ian Millhiser, at ThinkProgress, notes that this point was considered legally relevant in another recent case in Texas: in 2010 a cheerleader in Silsbee was kicked off the squad after refusing to cheer for one of the players. The girl had accused the boy of raping her; he later pled guilty to simple assault. She sued the school, arguing that by kicking her off the squad, it had violated her rights to free expression. The Fifth Circuit court ruled against her, and its reasoning was that as a cheerleader, she was supposed to speak on behalf of the school, not on behalf of herself. A less directly relevant example, which nevertheless suggests that cheerleading is serious business, would be the case of Crystal City, where the high school's discriminatory policy against Mexican-American girls who wanted to be cheerleaders led to several years of protests, starting in 1969, on behalf of Chicano rights. (One of the young activists who organised those protests, José Angel Gutiérrez, would go on to co-found and lead La Raza Unida.)

In other words, courts have held, and Texans believe, that cheerleaders are a special subset of students, and not just for the reasons dramatised in John Hughes movies and Taylor Swift songs. They're not people who happen to be standing on the football field, exercising their right to free speech. They're deputies of the school administration; they speak for the school, not themselves. That was the point of the Fifth Circuit's ruling, anyway. So which is it? Do cheerleaders speak as themselves or not?

It's unsurprising but significant that Mr Perry and Mr Abbott would argue otherwise. Neither of them can get through a press conference lately, including the aforementioned one, without deflecting a question about whether he's running for governor in 2014. Mr Abbott is also a Republican, and might be willing to challenge Mr Perry in the primary; a widespread opinion among Texas politicos is that should Mr Perry stand for another term, Mr Abbott has a better shot of beating him than anyone else, in the primary or the general. Polls have shown that a large majority of Texas voters support the separation of church and state, and everyone knows that the state's changing demographics could mean trouble for Texas Republicans. But if Texas's leadership is going to continue to dabble in the culture wars, it's a solid sign that the shift isn't afoot just yet.

Of course the public should not be compelled to support religious speech by governmental institutions. The cheerleaders in this case have some self funding: their signs, their uniforms. But they also have a great deal of tax payer funded equipment: the football field, the insurance premiums, police protection for the games, the electricity bill for night games, etc. Tax payers can not opt out of paying their school taxes. Therefore this is clearly a case of the government promoting one religion over others and that is forbidden by the first amendment. This has been repeatedly upheld by our highest courts. They need to start respecting the law of the land and support the, can I get a C-O-N-S-T-I- you get my point.

It's hard for me to get worked up over this. I'm no fan of religion; it would be closer to say that I am actually a foe. But I can't really see how anyone is hurt by the cheerleaders' actions here. This is much less government endorsement of religion as just letting people do what they want to do (even though I personally think it's dumb).

I also want to point out that -- only somewhat facetiously -- that I think high school football is probably the bigger religion in Texas than Christianity.

I support the separation of church and state, but I'm instinctively clenchy when we get overly careful about it. If I had any tolerance for the whininess of every single individual I see publicly supporting prayer and religious symbols in school, I would probably agree with them more.

I tend to think that the proper separation of church and state recognizes the religiosity of the community without trying to encourage or suppress it.

Isn't violently destroying a banner with a Biblical verse kind of anti-Christian? Is it okay if everyone agrees to think "Yay baby Jesus!" while they rip apart his words, but not okay if you suspect people are thinking it's an act of desecration while they do it?

Of course the public should not be compelled to support religious speech by governmental institutions. The cheerleaders in this case have some self funding: their signs, their uniforms. But they also have a great deal of tax payer funded equipment: the football field, the insurance premiums, police protection for the games, the electricity bill for night games, etc. Tax payers can not opt out of paying their school taxes. Therefore this is clearly a case of the government promoting one religion over others and that is forbidden by the first amendment. This has been repeatedly upheld by our highest courts. They need to start respecting the law of the land and support the, can I get a C-O-N-S-T-I- you get my point.

It's hard for me to get worked up over this. I'm no fan of religion; it would be closer to say that I am actually a foe. But I can't really see how anyone is hurt by the cheerleaders' actions here. This is much less government endorsement of religion as just letting people do what they want to do (even though I personally think it's dumb).

I also want to point out that -- only somewhat facetiously -- that I think high school football is probably the bigger religion in Texas than Christianity.

Isn't violently destroying a banner with a Biblical verse kind of anti-Christian? Is it okay if everyone agrees to think "Yay baby Jesus!" while they rip apart his words, but not okay if you suspect people are thinking it's an act of desecration while they do it?

I support the separation of church and state, but I'm instinctively clenchy when we get overly careful about it. If I had any tolerance for the whininess of every single individual I see publicly supporting prayer and religious symbols in school, I would probably agree with them more.

I tend to think that the proper separation of church and state recognizes the religiosity of the community without trying to encourage or suppress it.

The point is not really speech, nor is it really about religion. It's about conformity. And that gets at the heart of how people see the Constitution.

People who put up religious messages there assume all the people watching are with them. They grow up in a place where everyone at least espouses a version of Christianity, no matter what they actually believe. Sure there are a few vocal dissidents but the great mass tries to present itself as an entity which shares. There is good in that. There is bad in that.

Does the Constitution protect those who don't fit? If you're Muslim or Jewish in East Texas, you already have to fit into a society that wears Christianity on its sleeve. You can't help but have it pushed at you every day, all day.

Is this kind of act just another expression of what society is doing anyway? Or is it across the line?

Being Jewish, I have to say I don't care. I have spent a tremendous amount of time in the South and expect to be inundated with Christian messages. I've had the Bible read to me - to save me - many times. This is usually accompanied by caring messages. I stifle the urge to respond. I say thank you.

This isn't a legal analysis. I don't expect a court ruling against it to change anything. In the same way I don't expect a court ruling saying it's ok to lower the rate of teen pregnancy in these areas where religion is strongest.

I draw lines at things like teaching creationist nonsense in schools. Or in putting Evangelical beliefs in the mouths of the Founders. But even then, part of me thinks, "You know, if these dopes want to raise their children to be dopes, then who am I to say no?"

And when you pray, do not be like the hypocrites, for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and on the street corners to be seen by others. Truly I tell you, they have received their reward in full.
But when you pray, go into your room, close the door and pray to your Father, who is unseen. Then your Father, who sees what is done in secret, will reward you.

"Lots of Christians wear crosses around their necks, you really think when Jesus comes back, he ever wants to see a cross?" - Bill Hicks
After hearing that quote, I have always been less certain that Christians fully think out the meaning behind things they do within their beliefs.

Why is it, Medicine4theDead, your words--which are so full of venom and hate--seem better to you than those of people who are encouraging each other to love one another and persevere?

Whether you agree with Christianity or any religion or not, there are definitely radicals in every religious group that do crazy things like drink cool-aid or blow themselves up, but they are very often confused with the overwhelming vast majority that are true adherents and not radical in any destructive way. There are even radicals that go around verbally assaulting others by berating and ridiculing them, but that is the "religion" you belong to, not the Christians portrayed in the article.

The banner above says, "Let us run with endurance the race which God has set before us." Those words do not directly hurt you or revile your obviously differing "beliefs" (in quotes so respectfully not to be confused with religious beliefs). In fairness, neither would "allahu akbar" cause you any personal harm. However, your hate speech about those who express their religious beliefs is personally demeaning and degrading and runs contrary to the ideals of the Constitution of the United States which is so often referenced here.

Quick history reminder: Most people came to the U.S. in the first place to escape religious persecution and you carry on that tradition of persecution that drove people to leave their homes and risk certain death to cross a vast ocean in faint hope of escaping it. The country was founded on eliminating or at least reducing religious persecution, sadly has strayed in some areas, but remains one of the few places on earth where it is legal for citizens to express whatever religious belief suits them. I don't care if your demeaning toward Christians, Muslims, Jews, Hindus, Baha'i s, Atheists, or any other group, that behavior is un-American and unacceptable.

Momma had the best advice in this matter and I'll remind you: If you don't have anything nice (or kind, or helpful, or encouraging, etc.) to say, don't say anything at all. Look around, there are plenty of helpful comments from all sides of this subject that are not vicious, cruel personal attacks on others or their beliefs yet provide interesting insight into differing view points concerning the very real issue of whether it is right for these school ambassadors to endorse an overtly religious sentiment.

In Texas? That would be like holding a sign saying, "kick (the crap out of) me". I live in Texas, it is not a place friendly to Islam. Or rational thought... I mean, look at our governor, he actually won election here several times and that should tell you how stupid ~40% of Texans are (he can't actually win a majority, but 3rd parties keep trotting out candidates that split the vote and put guvnor Hair back in office).

As someone who was very active for years in the secular movement in the United States and knows the Freedom From Religion Foundation's leadership personally (the group referred to as the "atheist group from Wisconsin"), I would offer this for consideration:

If the banners championed a religious message other than Christian, you can be quite certain they would never have made it to the field. Certainly not in a small town in the southern United States. This is not an issue of Christians being denied their freedom of speech or religion, it's an issue of Christians being told they may not force their religion upon others. And you don't have to work hard to discover that fact for yourself - many are quite open and honest that the Christian message deserves to be heard above all others because, according to many American Conservatives, we live in a "Christian Nation", in spite of all historical evidence to the contrary.

What many American Christians have not learned to appreciate is the fact that keeping government out of their religion has been a benefit, not a burden to them. When I was active in the secular movement, many of us used to joke that the quickest way to get rid of religion would be to support government endorsement. American Christians should consider the long term consequences of taking something that is supposed to provide a deep sense of meaning and belittling it on a destructible football banner.

I'm sick of pretty women that wouldn't give me the time of day, unless there was a photo-op telling me what to do, say or dress.
I'm likely not alone in hating these kids for their hokey outlook and ponytails. The whole enterprise of Texas football players and their perky posse is just plain loathsome.
It's apple pie and American out front and hookups under the bleachers. We've gone absolutely batshit about the most ridiculous things - as if they would recognize the historical Jesus, semitic in feature, speaking Aramaic rather than their mythic Six-foot tall blue-eyed Aryan in an Armani bathrobe.
It's just so freakishly TEXAN.